Revisiting Open Science from the Perspective of Ethical Standards
Narrative of open science is becoming popular as the idea of openness relates to the availability, accessibility, transparency and replicability of the scientific data and processes. At the downside, open science, raises several ethical questions. Openness in sensitive data can lead to its misuse by compromising anonymity and confidentiality, or may be used for other nefarious purposes, besides being the costly nature of the open models. Extensive debates and dialogues among the policy experts, scientists and bioethicists in the context of weighing risks vs benefits may help in devising balanced strategies.
2. C. Allen, and D.M. Mehler. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS biology 17(5): p. e3000246 (2019).
3. T. Dienlin., N. Johannes., N.D. Bowman., P.K. Masur., S. Engesser., A.S. Kümpel., J. Lukito., L.M. Bier., R. Zhang., B.K. Johnson, and R. Huskey. An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/ joc/jqz052
4. V. Forster., Eight Fraudulent Cancer Research Studies Contained The Same Copied Results. How Does This Happen? Forbes (2020). https:// www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/06/09/ eight-fraudulent-cancer-research-studiescontained-same-copied-results-how-does-thishappen/#606f81b41b5b
5. P. Pantziarka, and L. Meheus. Journal retractions in oncology: a bibliometric study. Future Oncology 15(31): p. 3597-3608 (2019).
6. H. Ledford, and R. Van Noorden. High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight. Nature 2020. https://www.nature.com/
7. C. Piller, and K. Servick. Two elite medical journals retract coronavirus papers over data integrity questions. Science 2020. https://www.sciencemag. org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journalsretract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity
8. P. Kraker., D. Leony., W. Reinhardt and G. Beham. The case for an open science in technology enhanced learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 3(6), 643-654 (2011).
9. N.R. Haddaway., Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environmental evidence 7(1): p. 1-5 (2018).
10. S. Das., T. Glatard., C. Rogers., J. Saigle., S. Paiva., L. MacIntyre., M. Safi-Harab., M.E.
Rousseau., J. Stirling., N. Khalili-Mahani, and D. MacFarlane. Cyberinfrastructure for open science at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 10, p.53 (2017).
11. V. Poupon., A. Seyller, and G.A. Rouleau. The Tanenbaum open science Institute: leading a paradigm shift at the montreal neurological institute. Neuron 95(5): p. 1002-1006 (2017).
12. G.C. Banks., J.G. Field., F.L. Oswald., E.H. O’Boyle., R.S. Landis., D.E. Rupp, and S.G. Rogelberg. Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology 34(3): 257-270 (2019).
13. J.M. Wicherts., D. Borsboom., J. Kats, and D. Molenaar. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American psychologist 61(7): 61(7): p. 726 (2006).
14. J.N. Rouder., The what, why, and how of born-open data. Behavior research methods 48(3): 1062-1069 (2016).
15. R.S. Noyce., S. Lederman, and D.H. Evans. Construction of an infectious horsepox virus vaccine from chemically synthesized DNA fragments. PloS one 13(1) (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0188453
16. T. Inglesby., Horsepox and the need for a new norm, more transparency, and stronger oversight for experiments that pose pandemic risks. PLoS Pathogen;14(10):e1007129 (2018). doi:10.1371/ journal.ppat.1007129